Jackson et al v. Catanzariti et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 20 Motion to Strike; granting 20 Motion to Stay; denying 35 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion to Strike; granting 35 Motion to Stay; adopting in part 41 Report and Recommendations; granting 70 Motion; denying 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 4/15/13. (bcw) Modified on 4/15/2013 (bcw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
MIGUEL JACKSON and KELVIN
STEVENSON,
Plaintiffs,
V

.

6:12-cv-1 13

JOSEPH CATANZARITI, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
After an independent and de novo review
of the entire record, the undersigned concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss or Strike pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and
12(f) be DENIED. The Court does not,
however, concur with the R&R as to
Defendants' Motion to Stay under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Defendants'
Motion to Stay, ECF Nos. 20, 35, 36, 70
therefore, is GRANTED, and this case is
STAYED until resolution of the ongoing
criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs
stemming from the facts of this case.
In their Objections, the moving
Defendants assert that the Magistrate Judge
did not address their arguments that Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint should be
dismissed based on Rules 8(a) and 12(f).
Though the Magistrate Judge did not cite to
Rules 8(a) and 12(1), it is evident that the
Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint should not be dismissed
based on failure to state a claim (Rule 8(a)) or
that certain portions of that Complaint should

be dismissed as redundant (Rule 12(f)). The
Magistrate Judge conducted a frivolity review
of the First Amended Complaint and
determined that Plaintiffs' allegations state
colorable claims for relief against all
Defendants at this stage in the litigation. ECF
No. 41.
Defendants' Objections regarding their
Motion to Dismiss or Strike are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge's R&R as to those
motions is adopted as the opinion of the
Court. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or
Strike, ECF Nos. 20, 35, are DENIED.
Defendants also assert in their Objections,
as well as by way of a separately-filed appeal
of the Magistrate Judge's Order, that this
cause of action should be stayed based on
Younger. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants'
appeal.
There exists "a strong federal policy
against federal[] court interference with
pending state judicial proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances."
Middlesex
Cnly. Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar
Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). A federal
court should also abstain from hearing a case
"[w]here vital state interests are involved, .
'unless state law clearly bars the interposition
of the constitutional claim." Id. at 432
(quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 426
(1979)). "The question of whether a federal
court should abstain from interfering with a
state judicial proceeding 'is threefold: first, do
the proceedings constitute an ongoing state
judicial proceedings; second, do the
proceedings implicate important state
interests; and third, is there an adequate
opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
constitutional challenges." Boyd v. Georgia,
No. 12-14202, 2013 WL 950474, at *2 (11th

Cir. Mar 13, 2013) (quoting 31 Foster
Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th
Cir. 2003)).

process, Plaintiffs could obtain significant
information for use in the criminal case,
without having to opt in to the state criminal
discovery procedure. Plaintiffs cannot
manipulate the discovery process in this
manner.

Since the moving Defendants filed their
Motions to Dismiss, at least one of the
Plaintiffs has been indicted by a grand jury
for aggravated battery. ECF No. 37-1. At the
time this Complaint was filed, it appears that
both Plaintiffs had warrants out for their
arrests based on charges of aggravated
battery. ECF No. 37-2 at 7-9. Thus, the State
criminal proceedings were ongoing at the
time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants violated their
constitutional right to be free from an
excessive amount of force and are seeking
declaratory and monetary relief. During the
ongoing criminal proceedings, nothing
prevents Plaintiffs from asserting that
Defendants used excessive force against
them.

Accordingly, the Court does not concur
with the R&R denying Defendants' Motion to
Stay. Defendants Motion to Stay is
GRANTED.
This case is STAYED until
resolution of the ongoing criminal
proceedings against Plaintiffs.

This 4day of April, 2013.

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, JUDE
UNITED STATESDISTRICTOURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OIGEORGIA

This is not a case where there is a mere
"possibility" that criminal charges will be
filed. Compare, Comptroller of Currency v.
Lance, 632 F. Supp. 437,442 (N.D. Ga. 1986)
(holding that possibility of criminal
proceedings cannot justify stay). Instead,
active criminal proceedings are ongoing and
indictments were recently issued. Moreover,
Defendants have not asked for an indefinite
stay; they have merely requested a stay
pending the resolution of currently pending
criminal proceedings.
A stay is appropriate under these
circumstances. Discovery allowed in federal
civil cases is fairly broad. See FED. R. Civ. P.
26. State discovery rules in criminal cases are
much more limited and impose reciprocal
obligations. See O.C.G.A. § 17-16-I, el. seq.
As a result, through the civil discovery
2